1) Lets say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Would it be possible for macro evolution?

2) Why hold to a 6,000 year old Earth. When trees have been dated older than that? (I think the Earth is 50,000 - 20,000)

3) In my opinion the geologic column is evidence for evolution. Cyanobacteria is found in old rocks, but in these same rocks no humans, no mamals no nothing besides simple multicellular organisms have been found. how do you explain this?

4) Is it possible to believe in YEC and believe that evolution is possible?

5) I have been reading quite a bit in this forum. One thing which caught my eye was the speed of light, and that it was faster in the past. There was a graph showing that 6,000 years ago the speed of light was much quicker. however, if the speed of light is too quick it will make things in the universe unstable. How do you explain this?

Thats all the questions I have at the moment, I will have some more later.

1) Lets say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Would it be possible for macro evolution?

Yes, the 3.8 billion years or so that life has been here certainly allow for evolution above the species level.

2) Why hold to a 6,000 year old Earth. When trees have been dated older than that? (I think the Earth is 50,000 - 20,000)

We all know why, because scientific evidence is not the most important thing to people who believe in a young earth. The most important thing is a literal reading of the Bible, adding up geneaologies and then attempting to pull together whatever appearance of 'science' they can find to support this pre-determined conclusion.

In my opinion the geologic column is evidence for evolution. Cyanobacteria is found in old rocks, but in these same rocks no humans, no mamals no nothing besides simple multicellular organisms have been found. how do you explain this?

They don't, at least not in any way that stands up to even elementary examination. I have to say I'm curious how you would understand this with a 50,000 year old earth.

4) Is it possible to believe in YEC and believe that evolution is possible?

No, you can't have universal common descent in 6,000-10,000 years. YECs do however believe in a completely different form of evolution, explosive divergence after the flood, with almost daily speciation events.

I have been reading quite a bit in this forum. One thing which caught my eye was the speed of light, and that it was faster in the past. There was a graph showing that 6,000 years ago the speed of light was much quicker. however, if the speed of light is too quick it will make things in the universe unstable. How do you explain this?

Answersingenesis lists this as one of their arguments that should be avoided. The is no evidence that the speed of light has changed by the orders of magnitude that are required to get light the vast distances required in the 6,000-10,000 time limit that YECs have.Changing the speed of light alters various other things which would result in chaos and would require more divine interventions to fix. There is quite simply a complete breakdown in the laws of physics in a young cosmos.It is for reasons such as these that no serious cosmologist/physicist even entertains these ideas. Nobel Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann for example remarked that the scientific credibility of a young universe is comparable to (if not perhaps weaker than) that of a flat earth.

1) Lets say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Would it be possible for macro evolution?

"Macro evolution" is defined in biology as evolution at the species level or higher, and it doesn't take 4.5 billion years for that to happen.

2) Why hold to a 6,000 year old Earth. When trees have been dated older than that? (I think the Earth is 50,000 - 20,000)

You have three basic options here. Somehow conclude that the dating method is wrong, the Bible is wrong, or your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

I'm curious as to how you got your estimate on the age of the Earth? If you'll permit me to say; a very odd conclusion indeed.

3) In my opinion the geologic column is evidence for evolution. Cyanobacteria is found in old rocks, but in these same rocks no humans, no mamals no nothing besides simple multicellular organisms have been found. how do you explain this?

I think this is one of the more damaging observations facing creationism today. I'm curious to see how creationists will respond.

4) Is it possible to believe in YEC and believe that evolution is possible?

I think it all comes down to personal opinion here. I think most say no, while others carefully say that it may be possible for evolution to happen over vast amounts of time, which of course is not possible under a 6,000 year old universe.

5) I have been reading quite a bit in this forum. One thing which caught my eye was the speed of light, and that it was faster in the past. There was a graph showing that 6,000 years ago the speed of light was much quicker. however, if the speed of light is too quick it will make things in the universe unstable. How do you explain this?

Thats all the questions I have at the moment, I will have some more later.

Without a miracle I'd think you'll be hard pressed to find a scientific answer. You may be able to fudge out dates a tiny bit; lets say 10% or 15%, but not on the magnitude required for YEC. I think another explanation is in order, although I haven't seen one that I found very convincing.

They don't, at least not in any way that stands up to even elementary examination. I have to say I'm curious how you would understand this with a 50,000 year old earth.

I cant explain it, thats why I wanted to ask this particular question.

Answersingenesis lists this as one of their arguments that should be avoided. The is no evidence that the speed of light has changed by the orders of magnitude that are required to get light the vast distances required in the 6,000-10,000 time limit that YECs have.Changing the speed of light alters various other things which would result in chaos and would require more divine interventions to fix. There is quite simply a complete breakdown in the laws of physics in a young cosmos.It is for reasons such as these that no serious cosmologist/physicist even entertains these ideas. Nobel Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann for example remarked that the scientific credibility of a young universe is comparable to (if not perhaps weaker than) that of a flat earth.

No. There are credible scientists who dont believe the speed of light has always been constant.

I'm curious as to how you got your estimate on the age of the Earth? If you'll permit me to say; a very odd conclusion indeed.

At the moment I am guessing. Trees have been dated past the 10,000 year mark (so obviously trees have been around a lot longer)

Its only recently (about 6 months) I have researched the creation vs evolution and the geologic column shows the Earth is older than 10,000 years. So my 'guess' could be wrong. My date coud change.

Discounting carbon dating, trees can be dated back using the number of rings they have, the field is called "Dendrochronology". According to wiki, they have counted back up to 26,000 years ago from a 2004 study.

1) Lets say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Would it be possible for macro evolution?

2) Why hold to a 6,000 year old Earth. When trees have been dated older than that? (I think the Earth is 50,000 - 20,000)

3) In my opinion the geologic column is evidence for evolution. Cyanobacteria is found in old rocks, but in these same rocks no humans, no mamals no nothing besides simple multicellular organisms have been found. how do you explain this?

4) Is it possible to believe in YEC and believe that evolution is possible?

5) I have been reading quite a bit in this forum. One thing which caught my eye was the speed of light, and that it was faster in the past. There was a graph showing that 6,000 years ago the speed of light was much quicker. however, if the speed of light is too quick it will make things in the universe unstable. How do you explain this?

Thats all the questions I have at the moment, I will have some more later.

I'll answer a couple of these.

If the earth were billions, or even trillions of years old, there would never have or could ever be macroevolution. It's a 2nd law problem. It's an information problem, too.

Trees have not been dated over 10000 years. The one's that have, have had even more assumptions added to the dates than just counting rings from a very old tree.

The second law argument is not only misleading but completely un-related to the earth. We are constantly getting high doses of energy from an outside source, so we cannot be considered a closed system, which is what the 2nd law assumes.

If the earth were billions, or even trillions of years old, there would never have or could ever be macroevolution. It's a 2nd law problem. It's an information problem, too.

I do love this nice, warm-armchair science. What does that even mean? "2nd law problem" "information problem". Biological scientists have got more important things to do then constantly checking if the universes still adheres to the laws of thermodynamics and non-descript "information".

Discounting carbon dating, trees can be dated back using the number of rings they have, the field is called "Dendrochronology". According to wiki, they have counted back up to 26,000 years ago from a 2004 study.

The second law argument is not only misleading but completely un-related to the earth. We are constantly getting high doses of energy from an outside source, so we cannot be considered a closed system, which is what the 2nd law assumes.

ps. the link I provided goes to Answers in Genesis.

Does a frying pan cooling on the table have anything to do with the second law? Is it in a closed system?

I do love this nice, warm-armchair science. What does that even mean? "2nd law problem" "information problem".

I only answered according to what was asked. I can explain more if there is more discussion. That's how discussions of ideas usually works. I realize this is a problem for many evolutionists because they aren't interested in discussing ideas.

So let's get this discussion rolling.

A second law problem is a little like this: you see a ball rolling up a hill.

An information problem is a little like this: a computer program that was running fine suddenly stops working.

Biological scientists have got more important things to do then constantly checking if the universes still adheres to the laws of thermodynamics and non-descript "information".

So you are saying biological scientists don't have to stay within the realm of reality. Either you are not making sense or you are communicating poorly.

Nothing. But then again, "changes in allele frequencies of a population over time" has nothing to do with evolution.

Information carrying media is built using heat. This applies to everything from hard-drives to pencil scribed paper to DNA. So the 2nd law must be considered.

Okay, so you are basically avoiding the purpose of the sun in life. The sun is constantly providing an energy source for food creation for ALL creatures...well except the ones living by underwater volcano vents...

This is why the second law doesn't apply to evolution. The sun provides the energy for the dna to be written.

Honestly and truly, If you are going to use the second law argument, which does not apply to evolution, then you have to accept that the second law would also not allow life to live, for things to grow, for children to be born, yet all this happens.

By "oldest known" they are referring to the life span, so the oldest known tree lived for ruffly 5,000 years. Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is done by counting the rings of the tree, one ring per year. Counting the rings gives you the age.

But that's not all you can find out through the rings. Depending on the weather conditions you get different widths of the rings. Trees in the same area get the same weather conditions, so all the trees in that area will have identical rings (or close enough for measurements). Now when you get trees that lived in the same area but at different times that overlap, you can build a tree ring dates that spans over the lives of many trees.

That is what they did in the 2004 study creating a tree ring date going back 26,000 years. It wasn't one individual tree, but a collection of trees living in the same area at different times that overlap.